Hot Topics:

Boulder eyes 'menu' of benefits developers can trade for extra building height

By Alex Burness

Staff Writer

Posted:
08/22/2017 10:37:31 PM MDT

Updated:
08/23/2017 10:30:27 PM MDT

Boulder City Council discussed Tuesday the kinds of benefits the city should get in exchange from developers who seek to build above the local height limit. (Cliff Grassmick / Staff Photographer)

In 2015, amid high tension over the pace and look of new development in Boulder, the City Council approved a two-year moratorium limiting the construction of tall buildings in most parts of the city, and vowed to use those two years to assess the relationship between height, density and benefit to the community.

Now, with the extended moratorium set to expire on July 19 of next year, the council is committed to having something in place by then. What that something might look like was a subject of discussion Tuesday night when the council met for a study session.

Lacking at the moment is a policy that clearly ties building-height regulations — the limit is 35 feet in most of the city, though developers in certain areas can still request to build up to 55 feet — with broader community goals, which are laid out in the local planning guide known as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

Advertisement

To better connect city code with city ideals, the council and citizens must wrestle with several key questions: Where in the city should taller buildings be allowed? What types of projects — such as housing, mixed use or offices — should be allowed to go taller? And if and when Boulder does grant a developer a height exemption, what kinds of public benefits should the city reasonably expect to get in return?

That last question seems to be at the heart of the issue, and inspired some debate during Tuesday's session.

City planning staff has proposed preparing a policy, to be turned into code before next July, that would identify the construction of affordable housing as the sole "community benefit" developers could trade for the privilege of building taller than what would normally be allowed.

But, as multiple council members noted, the concept of community benefit is difficult to quantify in the first place and, in any event, it's certainly not limited solely to affordable housing — sorely needed as that may be in Boulder.

Councilman Aaron Brockett was among several who wondered whether the city might do well to offer developers a "menu" of sorts; that is, a list of ways to benefit the community in exchange for an exemption. These could include, according to a list drafted earlier this year by the council, "affordable commercial space, spaces for the arts, community gathering space, public art, land for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration, outdoor spaces, and other identified social needs."

"The market is going to go to the cheapest means of getting that additional height," he said. "We may run the risk that we may not get any affordable housing because we've provided a cheaper means for projects to get additional height."

Also, Robertson argued, the council must consider that even if it would like to get a greater diversity of community benefits from developers, it could lose out by asking for so much benefit — beyond what staff has proposed — that developers start to shy away from applying.

"We don't want to give away height for things that aren't valuable, but if we put too many community benefits into the program, we may never get any of them because we've asked too much," he said.

Councilwoman Jan Burton represented a minority opinion when she said she agreed with staff's idea.

"You've picked out what the community has told us time and time again is the highest priority, which is housing," Burton said, referencing citywide surveys that have indicated as much.

But a majority of the council seemed to want, at some point, to lengthen the list of things developers can trade for extra height.

"I think we need to have a menu of options," Brockett said. "Maybe it starts with affordable housing, but we're beginning the conversation about broader community benefits."

Mayor Suzanne Jones noted the council's collective desire to meet its self-imposed July deadline by drafting actual policy instead of acting as it did during the first two years of the moratorium. But she directed staff to look at a longer "menu" — even if the broadening of options follows an initial ordinance that looks only at affordable housing.

"I think everybody still agrees affordable housing is the top (priority)," Jones said. "I think we are talking ourselves into coming up with principles such that we meet our deadline on the height issue, but we can also have a fuller conversation on community benefit."

Meanwhile, the council has not had much discussion on the tools it can use to hold developers accountable for the benefits they promise. A recent — and painful, for some — example of this absence of accountability came when plans for a previously promised arthouse cinema in the Pearl West building were all but terminated last week.

The developers of that space said they'd build a theater as a benefit to the public in exchange for a height exemption. Councilwoman Mary Young said on Friday that the lack of follow-through on that front was a "betrayal," and one that can only be thwarted in the future through more explicit policy.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story